He has been shamefully lying to the people of the Canary Islands for several weeks: he repeats every day that he doesn't care whether the Superior Court of Justice or the Court of Instruction of La Laguna investigates him; but he is wriggling like a cat on its back so that the Superior Court of Justice, exercising a jurisdiction it no longer has, will close the case.
A case in which, according to the most elementary logic, he will be charged with acts related to corruption as soon as it is returned to La Laguna.
For this simple reason: the Provincial Court of Santa Cruz de has issued two orders declaring that some resolutions and conduct of Clavijo and his delegated councilors may be criminal and, recently, the Court of Instruction itself sent a reasoned report to the Superior Court of Justice of the Canary Islands based on the existence of criminal evidence in which Clavijo appears as the author.
Clavijo, desperately, intends for the Superior Court to exercise jurisdiction over the Grúas Case and close it without further ado. Despite the entry into force of the new Statute of Autonomy that eliminates privileges.
Clavijo, his advisors and propaganda agents have aired some arguments these days - some, in my opinion, quite far-fetched - to try to get away with it.
Why do they insist on repeating that the rule of the new Statute that eliminates privileges is an unfavorable rule for him, that restricts his rights of defense, and therefore cannot be applied "retroactively" to a matter that is already in the TSJC? Could it be because Clavijo is going to have fewer guarantees for his defense before the judges who investigate and judge the rest of the Canary Islanders, than before the TSJC? Or could it be because someone promised him that the TSJC would immediately close the case, leaving Clavijo and the two who are already charged unscathed? This has to be explained to us.
Clavijo knows, although many people don't, that the only reason for privileges is to protect privileged officials - whether parliamentarians or members of the government or the judiciary - from complaints for acts committed precisely in the exercise of those positions. And not, as in the Grúas Case, when they are investigated for acts committed before being privileged or in the exercise of other positions.
Clavijo is trying to abuse the privilege enjoyed by members of Parliament and the Government before the entry into force of the Statute, to avoid a sung indictment for his actions when he was mayor of La Laguna. He thus places himself alongside the worst of the political class, alongside those who, by abusing privilege, have discredited it in the eyes of the public. As a Canary Islander, I am ashamed.
Applying the privilege exclusively to investigations for acts committed in the exercise of the position for which one is privileged (in this case, the presidency of the Government or his status as an autonomous parliamentarian) is what the Council of State proposes, with a view to a future reform of the Constitution. Yes: in the same opinion that Clavijo and his advisors have aired these days, as if it could have any effect on the Grúas Case.
They have used the opinion of the Council of State, conveniently censoring what does not interest them (Clavijo has an easy trigger for censorship), because they know that many Canary Islanders do not know very well what the Council of State is, the supreme consultative body "of the Government" - that is, it is neither legislative nor judicial power - and it sounds to them like something like Air Force One.
They revel in the ignorance and misinformation of many people. And that is one of the great specialties of the house. Of the Canarian Coalition, of course.
Clavijo and his propaganda mariachi have also been speculating with another argument: the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court on the loss of privilege is not applicable to this case, because until now the losses of privilege of deputies had only occurred by resignation from the seat or by the termination of the parliamentary mandate. And the suppression of privilege by a legislative change, such as that produced with the entry into force of the Statute, is unprecedented.
Indeed: according to the Supreme Court, the Court of privilege must continue to hear the case, even if the privileged person had lost his status as such, only if the investigation had concluded and the opening of the oral trial had been decreed. But that Court continued to be a court of privilege for those who continued to be deputies and those who acquired that status as a result of new elections.
But the TSJC has suddenly lost all jurisdiction over the deputies and members of the autonomous government. The power to judge is a terrible power that decides on the freedom and property of people and, in so many places, even on life.
That is why in the Rule of Law the principle of the non-extendability of jurisdiction is sacred. And they proclaim it solemnly, as soon as they open them, the Organic Law of the Judiciary and the Law of Criminal Procedure.
No judicial authority can exercise that power for even a second without having it attributed to it by a rule with the rank of law, without incurring serious legal responsibilities.
What Clavijo intends - although he denies it more than Saint Peter - is that the Superior Court of Justice retain the Grúas Case and close it immediately after having absolutely lost jurisdiction over it. It is no longer, therefore, a Court of privilege for either deputies or members of the government, current or future.
In other words: Clavijo wants a Court for himself only, as if it were still a court of privilege and he a privileged person. And, to make matters worse, to have an investigation closed outright for acts that may be criminal - as several judicial resolutions have declared - of which he was director and main actor when he was mayor of La Laguna. Before being privileged according to the old Statute, when he was elected deputy and invested as president of the Government.
And all because someone promised him that if the Grúas Case reached the TSJC they were going to close it outright.
It's a good thing he says he doesn't care whether one court or another investigates him. Because if he didn't care, God help us.
Santiago Pérez. La Laguna.
